Jump to content

Draft:Challenges in Protecting Marine Biodiversity in the European Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EU and marine biodiversity

[edit]

Introduction

[edit]

The European Union is actively working to protect marine biodiversity with updated policy plans. The last one is the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. It is an ambitious plan aimed at reversing biodiversity loss and building resilience to environmental threats, including climate change.[1][2]. A key aspect of the strategy is its commitment to protecting 30% of EU seas by 2030, with one-third of those areas being strictly protected. This initiative is crucial for safeguarding marine biodiversity, as only 1% of EU marine areas are currently strictly protected. The strategy emphasizes ecosystem-based management, which seeks to reduce the negative impacts of fishing and other human activities on marine life, particularly on sensitive species and seabed habitats. In line with this, the European Commission’s 2023 action plan outlines measures to protect and restore marine ecosystems, including the urgent need to protect fish spawning areas, reduce fish mortality, and phase out harmful fishing practices. The EU is also leading global efforts to expand marine protection, contributing to initiatives like the creation of new Antarctic marine protected areas.

Issues with EU’s governance over marine biodiversity protection

[edit]
[edit]

The first and most important category of factors that hampers the EU's ability to protect marine biodiversity effectively is related to fragmentation. Fragmentation means that things are separated rather than integrated into a comprehensive framework. There is plenty of evidence of such fragmentation in the literature on marine biodiversity. It applies to many crucial aspects of marine biodiversity protection. We might observe so many fragmentations because marine biodiversity requires "consideration of geographic (between land and sea), political (between conservation and exploitation), and economic (between fisheries, tourism, intellectual property, and many other sectors) factors" [3]. Fragmentation is dangerous as it fails to realize the interconnectedness of issues, areas, and actors, especially since all nations will be harmed directly and indirectly [4][5].

Different understandings - First of all, key actors often have divergent interpretations, understandings, and perceptions of certain policies or guidelines, making it hard to reconcile their objectives [6][7][8].

Conflicting interests - Moreover, many stakeholders are involved in European marine biodiversity, and they sometimes hold conflicting interests. They have different values, interests, and expectations[7]. Even if they are all EU member states, they can have different politics, policies, and resources and use maritime space differently - leading to different preoccupations [9]. This is a fragmentation happening between actors, but there is also evidence of fragmentation of interests within actors, as one actor might hold conflicting interests itself. For example, states are likely to seek both conservation and exploitation of marine resources[3]. There are two ways in which biodiversity and economic growth can conflict: 1) "sectoral development abuses conflict with marine biodiversity" and 2) "marine biodiversity protection may hinder sustainable blue growth"[10]. One of the main concerns regarding the MSFD is the “uncertainty about how conservation objectives will be reconciled with the needs of other marine and maritime sectors.”[11].

Complexity of the issue - Marine biodiversity is a complex issue affected by many things, making it challenging to address them all together. If we try to address those issues on their own, it is unlikely that we can achieve significant results for marine biodiversity protection[3]. However, creating a comprehensive framework is also extremely challenging, as more issues and stakeholders are involved[3]. Actors have trouble understanding the inevitable interdependency between healthy ecosystems and sustainable coastal fisheries and "usually address either large scale management of stocks or individual fish species of nature conservation"[4].

Tensions between science, law, and action - There are consequential tensions between legal battles and immediate action, which slows marine biodiversity protection and "may explain why wider marine biodiversity has continued to deteriorate in Europe"[12]. There are also gaps between scientific evidence and corresponding policy production[6][13].

Regulation is fragmented - Regulation and management are both sectorally and geographically fragmented[3]. This means that regulation on marine biodiversity might differ between 1) different sectors and 2) different countries or areas. This lowers the impact of such regulation to positively protect marine biodiversity, especially since marine biodiversity has no geographical frontiers.

Different scales - Fragmentation is also present in scales. Indeed, what matters at the European level sometimes differs from what is important at national or regional levels[10][14]. This is particularly relevant for "regional water management and cultural identity of local populations"[14]. Some aspects of the EU's approach are too broad and do not effectively address the specificities of marine biodiversity, some species, or some unique regions such as the Arctic[15][16]. This is reflected in the fact that some issues can affect specific regions disproportionately without creating more concerns or care. For example, oil or gas leakages in the Arctic are significantly harder to clean, but there is no increased vigilance[16]. The Arctic is also affected by specific issues that are not applicable in other environments; for example, arctic species can be greatly disturbed by noise pollution as it is a very silent environment[16]. Species in other regions might be less sensitive to noise pollution, leading to fewer concerns about it and a failure to tackle it effectively in the Arctic. This is not specific to the Arctic. Indeed, different countries and regions deal with different threats or with different intensities of threats that require localized strategies[17]. There are also important "gaps in expertise and resources" for some species/regions, affecting broader policies for local development[8]. This creates a paradox as we want to 1) push for large and international frameworks and 2) address the specific issues of each region or sub-issues. This poses more general questions about how to strike a balance between compromising regional issues for international agreements without depriving those agreements of their substance and usefulness. It is hard to deal with the issue in isolation but also hard to create a comprehensive framework because more issues and stakeholders are involved[3]. However, this challenge is not specific to marine biodiversity but to any sort of cooperation.

Lack of coordination between EU member states - There is a large agreement in the literature that there is a lack of coordination and cooperation among member states, which negatively impacts marine biodiversity protection[9][11][18]. A study on the assessment of the MSFD demonstrates that member states work individually[9]. Another study on marine spatial planning also concludes that "none of the (…) spatial planning initiatives have integrated or addressed this broader international context nor do they have a framework in place that might allow cooperation in the future"[18].

Lack of cross-sectoral collaboration- So far, much of what has been done about marine biodiversity has been "sector-specific"[16]. There is a crucial lack of Environmental Policy Integration, defined by the European Environmental Agency as "including environmental considerations in other policies with a view of achieving sustainable development"[10]. There are some developments, but clearly not enough to unite "all relevant European policy sectors" "under the shared objective of sustainable management and protection of themarine environment and its resources"[19]

Lack of consistency and harmonization - Many scholars observe a lack of consistency and harmonization - it applies to databases, assessment, and self-report - which prevents reliable and meaningful comparison and weakens the EU's ability to implement harmonized and comprehensive policies to protect marine biodiversity[20][9][8]. Some scholars introduce the concept of "political desynchronization," which implies a detachment from political borders to increase cooperation[9].

[edit]

This fragmentation and lack of collaboration translate into the EU's ability to protect marine biodiversity effectively.

Monitoring implementation of policies and marine biodiversity is of crucial importance, as a lot of what is asked by the EU from member states relies on monitoring; and yet there are important gaps, especially regarding Marine Protected Areas and Alien Invasive Species[21][9][7][20][22]. Good data is needed for effective monitoring, and monitoring must be extensive, which partly explains why it is so costly[22]. Systematic assessment of objectives is also lacking, and some assessments are misreported[7][9][14][23]. A study on MPAs reveals the importance of assessment[7]. Indeed, the EU aims for 30% of its waters to be MPAs and 10% of strict protection. This is ambitious and could protect marine biodiversity. However, without assessing whether those goals are shared, we can not reflect on this policy and its impact. They found that only 11.4% of EU waters are MPAs, and only 0.2% are fully or highly protected while almost 90% had low levels of protection or presented incompatibility with conservation[7].

One factor that negatively impacts monitoring is the lack of data[22]. This is especially relevant for specific regions like the Arctic and for Marine Protected Areas[16][17]. Scholars alert about a critical lack of data on overall economic and environmental costs and benefits of certain actions[10]. They also report major gaps in "data availability, both as spatial and ecosystem component levels"[8]. Some argue that combining socioeconomic data and stakeholder house patterns with biological data is crucial to obtaining meaningful data[24]. Databases are also not used to their full potential, as heterogeneous data is often recorded for the same region[9][20]. Effective management is complicated due to a lack of data and a "lack of adaptive management plans with clear conservation objectives".[16][17][20]. It is urgent to promote effective management to achieve ecological, social, and economic sustainability[18]

There is also a misperception of certain threats. First, not all countries/regions are affected by the same threats, or at least not to the same extent[17][4]. As we mentioned previously, we are unaware of or do not consider some specific threats the Arctic faces, for example. About Invasive Alien Species, there are also growing concerns about their listing, as it "does not fully acknowledge the threat they pose to the EU marine environment"[25].

[edit]

Finally, the literature also reports critical structural issues that negatively impact marine biodiversity.

There are clearly insufficient resources, especially regarding funding.[21][7][11][8]. This is also the case for staff capacity[7]. Additionally, some resources are not equally distributed among member states, which hampers overall cooperation and global results as some countries can participate more actively. This is the case for IAS reporting, where Mediterranean countries have better reporting capacities than Aegean-Levantine countries[23]. Moreover, staff sometimes lack the needed knowledge and expertise, especially when the issues and tools are highly complex and require multidisciplinary teams[26][27][28][20][14][8][8][25]

There is an issue of poor governance, with sometimes low political prioritization and low or no lasting vision[7][11][19]. Some argue that governance at the EU level is inherently hard as it involves many different levels that must be incorporated together[11].

This is illustrated by limited participatory settings.[7]. This creates not only legal vagueness but also low compliance due to insufficient binding agreements, insufficient enforcement, and low sanctions[17][7][10][9]

Recommendations

[edit]

The main recommendation for the EU to improve marine biodiversity protection is to better integrate different types of data, such as social factors, socioeconomic data, biological data, scientific data, and knowledge on the functioning of marine ecosystems[24][15][6][13][14]. Using those data altogether to inform policy production is needed to address marine biodiversity loss coherently and comprehensively[3][19][15]. Many recommend integrating data from different programs such as MSFD and Natura 2000 to better manage biodiversity conservation[17]. To help key actors take the best approaches, it is also recommended to use insights from psychology and management science to better understand human behavior by applying game theory, for example, to assess which policies are likely to have the desired outcome[11].

Scholars also argue that the staff involved in marine biodiversity protection should be better informed about the issues at stake. This includes a better understanding of the tools and models used and a common understanding of definitions and how data should be reported[14][8] . Moreover, more knowledge and expertise in specific areas or species is clearly needed[25]. Conducting and funding more scientific research could be one way to achieve this[16].

As fragmentation and lack of collaboration were some fundamental issues, many scholars argue that more collaboration is needed to effectively protect marine biodiversity at the European level. Collaboration is needed between actors, between countries, between sectors, between sea and land, and across all relevant actors to establish common goals and standards.[6][10][19][16]. Greater collaboration will facilitate harmonization, which must also be improved. Harmonization is needed for data collection and monitoring and can be achieved through common guidance and agreements[14][8]

Good data and collaboration are essential to increase and improve monitoring and management[20][9]. Assessment should also be repeated periodically to adjust policies based on new data[25]. If this is costly, it is absolutely essential: if we do not invest more to reach our objectives, then what we have already invested will be lost.

To address conflict of interests, some argue that we must strike a balance between conservation and exploitation[3]. However, for other scholars, we need a new and radically different vision of how biodiversity and economic growth interact[10]. For them, we must profoundly reshape how we think about those interactions. Indeed, we often see them as conflicting, i.e., protecting the environment will reduce economic profit while increasing economic profit will harm the environment. In this scenario, we need to prioritize one over the other. Those interactions can be synergistic: protecting marine biodiversity can increase sustainable blue growth, and we can have sustainable blue growth that positively impacts marine ecosystems[10].

New forms of governance are another recommendation widely shared across the literature as radical changes in the structure are needed[7][19]. This refers to more participation, citizen engagement, transparency, clarity, and thoughts about future generations[3][10][11]. The goal is to combine bottom-up and top-down approaches to reflect all interests and comprehensively protect marine biodiversity[3]. Preventive measures and lasting visions are also of great need; horizon scanning is one tool that can be used[25]. Another way to foster fresh and egalitarian perspectives is by addressing gender bias in marine sciences. A study found that there is an undeniable gender bias, of which most marine scientists are aware and believe that it can reduce their skills to solve conservation issues[29]. They advocate for measures to increase women's participation in marine sciences, which will benefit women and, more broadly, research and governance. Additionally, the EU should keep pushing for binding agreements with important repercussions when guidelines are not followed[19]. Regarding global leadership, the EU should take a more balanced and moderate approach to international negotiations, promoting collaborative strategies that allow for compromise and broader participation[5]. This includes recognizing the unique needs and development levels of various countries by providing resources, expertise, and funding to support global efforts. Additionally, fostering the exchange of successful policies and scientific insights across nations can improve understanding and cooperation.

As funding is also considered insufficient to actively protect marine biodiversity, we might think that the easiest way is to increase funding and, therefore, spending. However, this might be challenging as other issues require spending, and budgets are tight. Yet, we could manage the existing resources better by engaging in a cost-benefit analysis to estimate costs and returns and see what path we should take[16]. The EU should use its sparse resources on issues where it can have a real impact by analyzing what they are likely to achieve beforehand.

Conclusion

[edit]

In sum, the EU is making vital efforts to protect marine biodiversity. Those efforts are hindered by many forms of fragmentation, implementation issues, and structural challenges. The literature provides many recommendations to improve protection such as a better use of the data, more dedicated resources, better coordination and governance. However, the EU’s role remains crucial, as its presence provides a centralized authority that brings attention to marine biodiversity, potentially offering a more structured approach than if no such body existed.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Supporting biodiversity protection policies: CMEMS". Copernicus. Retrieved 10 November 2024.
  2. ^ "Marine Biodiversity objectives. Oceans and fisheries". European Commission. Retrieved 10 November 2024.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Queffelec, B; Cummins, V; Bailly, D (2009). "Integrated Management of Marine Biodiversity in Europe: Perspectives from ICZM and the evolving EU maritime policy framework". Marine Policy. 33 (6): 871–877. Bibcode:2009MarPo..33..871Q. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2009.04.016.
  4. ^ a b c Sørensen, T. K.; Thomsen, L. N. (2009). "A comparison of frameworks and objectives for implementation of Marine Protected Areas in northern Europe and in Southeast Asia". Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management. 12 (3): 258–263. Bibcode:2009AqEHM..12..258S. doi:10.1080/14634980903140323.
  5. ^ a b Xu, Q.; Zhang, M.; Han, S. (2024). "Reflections on the European Union's participation in negotiations of the Global Plastic Pollution Instrument under International Environmental Law". Frontiers in Marine Science. 11. doi:10.3389/fmars.2024.1388975.
  6. ^ a b c d Gorjanc, S.; Stojanovic, T. A.; Warren, C. R. (2024). "All at sea? exploring key actors' understandings of the role of European Union policies for protecting Marine Nature". Science and Practice. 6 (8). Bibcode:2024ConSP...6E3199G. doi:10.1111/csp2.13199.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Aminian-Biquet, J.; Gorjanc, S.; Sletten, J.; Vincent, T.; Laznya, A.; Vaidianu, N.; Claudet, J.; Young, J.; Horta e Costa, B. (2024). "Over 80% of the European Union's Marine Protected Area only marginally regulates human activities". One Earth. 7 (9): 1614–1629. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2024.07.010.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i Palialexis, A.; Kousteni, V.; Boicenco, L.; Enserink, L.; Pagou, K.; Zweifel, U. L.; Somma, F.; Cheilari, A.; Connor, D. (2021). "Monitoring Biodiversity for the EU marine strategy framework directive: Lessons learnt from evaluating the official reports". Marine Policy. 128. Bibcode:2021MarPo.12804473P. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104473.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Machado, I.; Costa, J. L.; Leal, M. C.; Pasquaud, S.; Cabral, H. (2019). "Assessment level and time scales of biodiversity indicators in the scope of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive – A case study for the NE atlantic". Ecological Indicators. 105: 242–253. Bibcode:2019EcInd.105..242M. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.05.067.
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i Kyriazi, Z; de Almeida, L. R.; Marhadour, A.; Kelly, C.; Flannery, W.; Murillas-Maza, A.; Murillas-Maza, R.; Farrell, D.; Carr, L. M.; Norton, D.; Hynes, S. (2023). "Conceptualising Marine Biodiversity mainstreaming as an enabler of regional sustainable blue growth: The case of the European Atlantic Area". Sustainability. 15 (24): 16762. doi:10.3390/su152416762.
  11. ^ a b c d e f g Santos, M. B.; Pierce, G. J. (2015). "Marine mammals and good environmental status: Science, policy and Society; challenges and opportunities". Hydrobiologia. 750 (1): 13–41. Bibcode:2015HyBio.750...13S. doi:10.1007/s10750-014-2164-2.
  12. ^ Pinn, E. H.; Macleod, K.; Tasker, M. L. (2021). "Conservation of transnational species: The tensions between legal requirements and best scientific evidence". Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 31 (11): 3291–3310. Bibcode:2021ACMFE..31.3291P. doi:10.1002/aqc.3693.
  13. ^ a b Van Rees, C. B.; Waylen, K. A.; Schmidt-Kloiber, A.; Thackeray, S. J.; Kalinkat, G.; Martens, K.; Domisch, S.; Lillebø, A. I.; Hermoso, V.; Grossart, H.; Schinegger, R.; Decleer, K.; Adriaens, T.; Denys, L.; Jarić, I.; Janse, J. H.; Monaghan, M. T.; De Wever, A.; Geijzendorffer, I.; Jähnig, S. C. (2020). "Safeguarding freshwater life beyond 2020: Recommendations for the New Global Biodiversity Framework from the European Experience". Conservation Letters. 14. doi:10.1111/conl.12771.
  14. ^ a b c d e f g Lillebø, A. I.; Somma, F; Norén, K.; Gonçalves, J.; Alves, M. F.; Ballarini, E.; Bentes, L.; Bielecka, M.; Chubarenko, B. V.; Heise, S.; Khokhlov, V.; Klaoudatos, D.; Lloret, J.; Margonski, P.; Marín, A.; Matczak, M.; Oen, A. M.; Palmieri, M. G.; Przedrzymirska, J.; Zaucha, J. (2016). "Assessment of Marine Ecosystem Services Indicators: Experiences and lessons learned from 14 European case studies". Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 12 (4): 726–734. Bibcode:2016IEAM...12..726L. doi:10.1002/ieam.1782. PMID 27064511.
  15. ^ a b c Fortuna, C. M.; Cañadas, A.; Holcer, D.; Brecciaroli, B.; Donovan, G. P.; Lazar, B.; Mo, G.; Tunesi, L.; Mackelworth, P. C. (2018). "The coherence of the European Union Marine Natura 2000 network for wide-ranging charismatic species: A Mediterranean case study". Frontiers in Marine Science. 5. doi:10.3389/fmars.2018.00356.
  16. ^ a b c d e f g h i Liu, N.; Kirk, E. A. (2015). "The European Union's potential contribution to protect marine biodiversity in the Changing Arctic: A roadmap". The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 30 (2): 255–284. doi:10.1163/15718085-12341354.
  17. ^ a b c d e f Mazaris, A. D.; Kallimanis, A.; Gissi, E.; Pipitone, C.; Danovaro, R.; Claudet, J.; Rilov, G.; Badalamenti, F.; Stelzenmüller, V.; Thiault, L.; Benedetti-Cecchi, L.; Goriup, P.; Katsanevakis, S.; Fraschetti, S. (2019). "Threats to marine biodiversity in European Protected Areas". Science of the Total Environment. 677: 418–426. Bibcode:2019ScTEn.677..418M. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.333. PMID 31059884.
  18. ^ a b c Douvere, F.; Ehler, C. N. (2009). "New Perspectives on sea use management: Initial findings from European experience with Marine Spatial Planning". Journal of Environmental Management. 90 (1): 77–88. Bibcode:2009JEnvM..90...77D. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.004. PMID 18786758.
  19. ^ a b c d e f Salomon, M. (2009). "Recent European initiatives in Marine Protection Policy: Towards lasting protection for Europe's seas?". Environmental Science & Policy. 12 (3): 359–366. Bibcode:2009ESPol..12..359S. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.12.008.
  20. ^ a b c d e f Outinen, O.; Katajisto, T.; NygårdC, H.; Puntila-Dodd, R.; Lehtiniemi, M. (2024). "National Assessment on the status, trends and impacts of marine non-indigenous species for the European Union Marine Strategy Framework directive". Ecological Indicators. 158. Bibcode:2024EcInd.15811593O. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.111593.
  21. ^ a b European Commission. Directorate-General for the Environment (2010). EU biodiversity action plan : 2010 assessment.EU biodiversity action plan : 2010 assessment. Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2779/42306. ISBN 978-92-79-16248-0. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  22. ^ a b c Patrício, J.; Little, S.; Mazik, K.; Papadopoulou, K.-N.; Smith, C. J.; Teixeira, H.; Hoffmann, H.; Uyarra, M. C.; Solaun, O; Zenetos, A.; Kaboglu, G.; Kryvenko, O.; Churilova, T.; Moncheva, S.; Bučas, M.; Borja, A.; Hoepffner, N.; Elliott, M. (2016). "European Marine Biodiversity Monitoring Networks: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats". Frontiers in Marine Science. 3. doi:10.3389/fmars.2016.00161.
  23. ^ a b Tsiamis, K.; Palialexis, A.; Stefanova, K.; Gladan, Z. N.; Skejić, S.; Despalatović, M.; Cvitković, I.; Dragičević, B.; Dulčić, J.; Vidjak, O.; Bojanić, N.; Žuljević, A.; Aplikioti, M.; Argyrou, M.; Josephides, M.; Michailidis, N.; Jakobsen, H. H.; Staehr, P. A.; Ojaveer, H.; Cardoso, A. C. (2019). "Non-indigenous species refined national baseline inventories: A synthesis in the context of the European Union's marine strategy framework directive". Marine Pollution Bulletin. 145: 429–435. Bibcode:2019MarPB.145..429T. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.06.012. PMC 6689109. PMID 31590807.
  24. ^ a b Gissi, E.; McGowan, J.; Venier, C.; Carlo, D. D.; Musco, F.; Menegon, S.; Mackelworth, P.; Agardy, T.; Possingham, H. (2018). "Addressing transboundary conservation challenges through marine spatial prioritization". Conservation Biology. 32 (5): 1107–1117. Bibcode:2018ConBi..32.1107G. doi:10.1111/cobi.13134. PMID 29767466.
  25. ^ a b c d e Tsiamis; Azzurro; Bariche; Çinar; Crocetta; Clerck; Galil; Gómez; Hoffman; Jensen; Kamburska; Langeneck; Langer; Levitt-Barmats; Lezzi; Marchini; Occhipinti-Ambrogi; Ojaveer; Piraino; Cardoso (2020). "Prioritizing marine invasive alien species in the European Union through Horizon Scanning". Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 30 (4): 794–845. Bibcode:2020ACMFE..30..794T. doi:10.1002/aqc.3267.
  26. ^ Costello, M.; Bouchet, P.; Emblow, C.; Legakis, A. (2006). "European Marine Biodiversity Inventory and taxonomic resources: State of the art and gaps in knowledge". Marine Ecology Progress Series. 316: 257–268. Bibcode:2006MEPS..316..257C. doi:10.3354/meps316257.
  27. ^ Ojaveer, H.; Olenin, S.; Narščius, A.; Florin, A.-B.; Ezhova, E.; Gollasch, S.; Jensen, K. R.; Lehtiniemi, M.; Minchin, D.; Normant-Saremba, M.; Strāke, S. (2017). "Dynamics of biological invasions and pathways over time: A case study of a Temperate Coastal Sea". Biological Invasions. 19 (3): 799–813. Bibcode:2017BiInv..19..799O. doi:10.1007/s10530-016-1316-x.
  28. ^ Bailey, S. A.; Brown, L.; Campbell, M. L.; Canning-Clode, J.; Carlton, J. T.; Castro, N.; Chainho, P.; Chan, F. T.; Creed, J. C.; Curd, A.; Darling, J.; Fofonoff, P.; Galil, B. S.; Hewitt, C. L.; Inglis, G. J.; Keith, I.; Mandrak, N. E.; Marchini, A.; McKenzie, C. H.; Zhan, A. (2020). "Trends in the detection of aquatic non-indigenous species across global marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems: A 50-year perspective". Diversity and Distributions. 26 (12): 1780–1797. Bibcode:2020DivDi..26.1780B. doi:10.1111/ddi.13167. PMC 10031752. PMID 36960319.
  29. ^ Giakoumi, S.; Pita, C.; Coll, M.; Fraschetti, S.; Gissi, E.; Katara, I.; Lloret-Lloret, E.; Rossi, F.; Portman, M.; Stelzenmüller, V.; Micheli, F. (2021). "Persistent gender bias in marine science and conservation calls for action to achieve equity". Biological Conservation. 257. Bibcode:2021BCons.25709134G. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109134.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Draft:Challenges_in_Protecting_Marine_Biodiversity_in_the_European_Union&oldid=1263634829"